Any moral claim obviously falls under the tacit restriction: ought implies can.

There´s too much soy and too little animal fat in this conversation to produce smart brain outcomes. I quit it.

Behind a thin veil of careful wording it is becoming apparent that there exists a sense of moral superiority in some of these people with regards to their veganism. — Tzeentch

Yes, that is the sense I get. These arguments always seem to start with something along the lines of "scientists say that reducing meat intake helps with..." and end up with "... how dare you torture and slaughter the innocent little animals, you unfeeling monsters".

Unless one is perfectly dedicated to the reduction of suffering, it is hopelessly hypocritical to judge the moral fibre of others. — Tzeentch

Agreed. Many people have the reduction of suffering as an important part of their morality. The science is not clear on the long term implication of any particular strategy to achieve this (as it rarely is in complicated situations), most people have other moral objectives to balance and everyone's circumstances differ. All this will lead to quite a wide range of equally reasonable courses of action all resulting from the same moral objective. But the sorts of vegans encountered in these arguments seem to want present their solution as the absolute, not simply an option among many.

Any moral claim obviously falls under the tacit restriction: ought implies can. — NKBJ

I'm not referring only to those situations where it is not possible to be vegan. I'm claiming that it is perfectly reasonable, from the empirical evidence we have, to hold the view that a fully vegan diet would not produce the least suffering of sentient beings in many circumstances.

Maybe in one or two rare exceptional cases. But hypothetical edge-case scenarios exist for all moral positions.

It's really not an argument against veganism.

No I'm talking about masses of people. I think there's a reasonable argument that organic Hill farming secures protein with less harm to animals than the equivalent heavily fertilised leguminous crop. I think that the deer cull (which where I'm from numbers over 30,000) represents a massive source of meat, the supply of which causes less harm than the equivalent vegetable protein. I think that, in terms of actual harm, for ethically reared meat in small quantities on land already only suitable for rough grazing, to move from this to vegetable growing yields such a minor reduction in actual suffering that it is actually full veganism which is the solution only in rare cases. Most of the the time it seems to me far more sensible to campaign for more humane farming methods (in both animal and vegetable husbandry). Something which has relatively well known effects, is at least vaguely achievable, and yields arguably close to the same reduction in suffering.

Actually, no. The math does not check out. The ratio of animals killed to calories gained still weighs more heavily in favor of plant farming than deer hunting.

There's about 100lbs of meat on the average deer. And about 715 calories per lb. That's 71,500 calories per deer.
Soy yields on average 6 million calories per acre. There are 2.47 acres to a hectare. That's 14,820,000 calories per hectare.
They estimate that about 15 animals are killed per hectare of crops. 14,820,000 divided by 15 is: 988,000 calories per dead animal. 988,000 divided by 71,500 is 13.8.

Almost 14 times more animals are killed on a calorie for calorie basis when hunting deer than harvesting soy--which is not even one of the most calorie-dense crops.

The deer are killed anyway.

But even if we didn't... What about the animals which suffer because the woodland won't regenerate as a result of browsing pressure, what about the long term environmental changes as a result of changing the habitat from woodland to soy plantation, what about the effect on the water table, the hydrology, how will it impact rural communities, what other species will be harmed by an excessive deer population, what about food vulnerability from relying on fewer crops, where's the fertiliser going to come from, what are the effects on soil organisms of the change in ecology, how will the climate respond to it, what effect on the economy will the changing market value have.

That's just the list I can think of right now.

It's not a simple equation of numbers killed. It's about dealing with uncertainty. Small changes can be more easily monitored, previously existing methods are more well-known. Abandoning thousand year old practices because a few scientists have done some maths is ridiculous.

To all of those, I say: we'll just have to find another way to fix it. It's a problem humans created, after all. We have to do better than perpetually bandaging the problem with murder.

And also, this is such a fringe topic--you can't feed the current human population on wild caught deer. Human animal consumption relies on billions of factory farmed animals.

Abandoning thousand year old practices because a few scientists have done some maths is ridiculous. — Isaac

Oh, you mean like when we ended slavery because it was the right thing to do? Or when we liberated women cause it was the right thing to do?

But if the actual math and facts don't make you even reconsider your position, there's nothing more to talk about here and it's obvious that you're just being stubborn.

I don't read anything in those quotes that even hints at the idea that these pronouncements only apply to a particular subsection of society, do you? — Isaac

I suggest you read them more carefully. Some refer to the meat industry - irrelevant to somebody who only eats what they kill. Another says veganism is an easy choice - clearly that is not aimed at hunter gatherers, for whom it would mean death. One talks about 'our morals' and hence can only be referring to people with the same moral framework as themself. The last one says that being vegan avoids engaging in a bad act. If you interpret that as meaning that not being vegan always means you are engaging in a bad act, you are committing the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.

The 'typical vegan' against whom you are railing is made of straw.

Some refer to the meat industry - irrelevant to somebody who only eats what they kill. — andrewk

But not irrelevant to hill farmers and dealers in wild game, so that's them eliminated.

Another says veganism is an easy choice - clearly that is not aimed at hunter gatherers, for whom it would mean death. — andrewk

But it is aimed at someone like me (who you claim was removed from consideration by the previous quote).

One talks about 'our morals' and hence can only be referring to people with the same moral framework as themself. — andrewk

As I said, I don't see any evidence of moral relativism here (otherwise there'd be no argument to be made) so those not holding the same moral framework as 'us' are the target of the pronouncements.

The last one says that being vegan avoids engaging in a bad act. If you interpret that as meaning that not being vegan always means you are engaging in a bad act, you are committing the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. — andrewk

Not at all because affirming the consequent does not apply in binomial mutually exclusive events. One either uses animal products (not a vegan) or one does not (vegan), they are not independent members of a wider set.

With independent classes, if being A avoids a bad act, then something about being a non-A is possibly but not necessarily a bad act, it is avoided by being A, but that is not necessarily the only means of avoiding it. To say otherwise would be affirming the consequent.

But with veganism, there is only one exclusive and exhaustive activity being measured (the use of animal products) and it is being measured binomially (yes/no). So it follows that because being a vegan avoids only one thing (the use of animal products) if it avoids a bad thing that bad thing must be the use of animal products. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that the author of that quote meant by it that veganism avoided some other unrelated bad thing by sheer coincidence.

I asked you for evidence that vegans generally assert what you say they do. You provided some quotes from this thread, which I then showed do not show they generally assert that. You've now replied by arguing against or criticising the quotes, which completely misses the point.

Here's the point again:

You claim that vegans generally argue that it is always and everywhere wrong to consume animal products. I don't believe your claim.

The onus is on you to support your claim. Arguing against random statements by various vegans does nothing to support your claim. If everything that every vegan ever said was always wrong, it would do nothing to support your claim that they make the italicised statement.

You've now replied by arguing against or criticising the quotes, which completely misses the point. — andrewk

No, you're moving the goalposts. This particular sub-debate started when you claimed that veganism was just a diet and any moral dimension was only added by a few fringe evangelists. I responded that these (moral claims) were the only type of claim I had encountered on philosophy threads (including this one). You then shifted my claim from "vegans make moral claims" to vegans claim that nobody anywhere ever should eat meat" note, this is your wording, not mine.

As far as I'm concerned, all I have stated is -

1. That vegans make moral claims (by which I mean they assign moral value to their actions)

2. That making moral claims on a public forum strongly implies ethical realism (otherwise their motive would be unintelligible).

3. Under a presumption of ethical realism, these moral claims apply to all people everywhere.

Only the first of these propositions is empirical and so it is the only one which is amenable to the supply of evidence in support of it. The other two are inductive. I can't supply evidence in support of them because they were never an empirical claim in the first place.

The quotes I've supplied constitute evidence that moral claims are being made and that these claims, taken together, do not exclude the groups of people I have been referring to (wild game hunters and dealers, hill farmers, rural smallholders...). The rest is induction, if you disagree with it, you'll have to provide an argument to that effect.

Statement 1 is only correct if we replace 'Vegans' by 'Some vegans'. But that constraint may not necessarily harm your argument. However I can see no reason why anybody should believe either 2 or 3.

I've read through most of your posts on the 1st and 2nd page, and I have a question for you.

Are you against human trafficking or human slavery? If so, I'd assume your reasoning would be to allow humans to be treated fairly and live long lives. But by your logic, you would also have to abandon most of your "luxuries" to adhere to this belief.

1.25 million people die in road crashes each year, no driving for you.
Your clothing comes from child slave work in other countries.
Your electronics are made by slave factory workers in china.
Do you watch porn? You contribute to sex trafficking and the degrading of women.
Do you take showers? Many don't have clean water. Offer to give yours up.
Do you drink filtered water? Offer that up as well.
Do you work in a country that promotes capitalism? Quit to support socialism instead.

I could on into the same illogical tirade you have displayed here. Any position you hold could be 'led' to a conclusion in which deems you as hypocritical. So if Vegans are hypocrites, you're worse.

Ask Yourself came out with a recent video talking about people who try and deploy this "Vegans are hypocrites" nonsense. You should check it out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJoVbNTu6Pc

Also just in case you were wondering, have you bought anything on this list?

List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/reports/child-labor/list-of-goods

Starts around page 7
https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ilab/ListofGoods.pdf

If you have purchased or consumed any of those products, you must be against human rights. Right?

If you have purchased or consumed any of those products, you must be against human rights. Right? — chatterbears

Kind of funny that the first thing they show is how to use a cell phone to access the information, then go on to explain that child and forced labor is part of the process to make cell phones?

That's good isn't it? If we want fewer people to buy phones containing the products of forced child labour, the primary audience we need to address is people that own and regularly replace their phones. Who knows how many of them have changed their habits after downloading and reading the material?

It was great to see such a technical, dispassionate destruction of the claims. But it'll have no impact on Piers Morgan, who has about as much respect for objectivity, logic and facts as the US president.

I am not against human rights, but I don't pretend to be a champion for human rights either, nor do I harbor any illusions about being morally superior to others. So whatever point it is you're making, I think it misses its mark.

Statement 1 is only correct if we replace 'Vegans' by 'Some vegans'. — andrewk

Yes, but what I meant to say was that it does happen. So the 'some' you correctly point out should be in there is at "Vegans sometimes make moral claims".

However I can see no reason why anybody should believe either 2 or 3. — andrewk

Really? That's a dramatic swipe at the whole of ethical theory. You might need to expand on that.

That's a dramatic swipe at the whole of ethical theory. — Isaac

You might need to substantiate that claim.

Not to mention the brains of the majority of even otherwise reasonable omnis turn to mush when it comes to this issue.

You might need to substantiate that claim. — andrewk

Ethical realism

I know what you meant by ethical realism. I just don't accept that it implies what you say it does. If you think you have an argument why it does, it would be worthwhile to discuss that.

Sounds like an interesting read, we also have no idea what further or less intelligence does to your perception and experience of emotion. What is an emotion? Is it arrogant to assume other animals have the same distaste to sadness, after all it is equally important to experience as happiness.

I agree that its no reason to stop doing anything good, but not actively doing bad being the same as doing good is something I'm unsure on. I would be inclined to disagree.

I don't know what to discuss because I don't understand where your issue is, you're just playing burden-of-proof tennis with me instead of just spelling out what it is about my argument that you don't agree with.

It's blindingly obvious from both the language used ('murder', 'torture', 'bad', 'stubborn omnis'...) and the sustained campaign, that people like NKBJ and Chatterbears think that non-vegans (with the exception of those who have to eat meat for survival) are committing a moral wrong. If you you're going to try and argue against this bit of the statement then I'm just not interested in such obvious sophistry.

Given that they think other people can have committed moral wrongs on the basis of their morality, they must be moral realists, that's just the definition of the term.

Veganism means not using animal products. It doesn't mean reducing animal product use, those arereductarians. It doesn't mean reducing animal suffering, those are animal welfare or animal rights campaigners. It means what it says, the elimination of animal products. One can, of course, try to be as vegan as possible, but the goal is still to eliminate, even if that goal is frustrated by pragmatics.

I've laid out my argument (again). I'm claiming that those vegans who make a moral claim must, by definition, be making a moral claim that it is bad to eat meat or use animal products unless absolutely necessary for immediate survival. If you think there's a reason to think otherwise, perhaps you could actually state it this time rather than just asking me to substantiate it again.

It's blindingly obvious from both the language used ('murder', 'torture', 'bad', 'stubborn omnis'...) and the sustained campaign, that people like NKBJ and Chatterbears think that non-vegans (with the exception of those who have to eat meat for survival) are committing a moral wrong. — Isaac

If you have an argument against what those two individuals have said then your argument is with them, and there's no point in taking it up with me. What I do not accept is your blanket statements about vegans.

you're just playing burden-of-proof tennis with me — Isaac

I often find myself in that position. Probably because my most strongly held philosophical position is anti-dogmatism - recognising that it is very difficult to be certain about anything, and that most dogmatic claims are unsupportable. That includes claims that vegans are inconsistent in the rationale underlying their practices (as opposed to the more specific claim that a certain argument made by a particular vegan is inconsistent, or doesn't stand up to scrutiny, which has a better chance of being supportable).

If you make big claims, expect to be asked for big arguments. It seems to me that the most sensible response to that standard is to scale back the scope of one's claims.

I'm claiming that those vegans who make a moral claim must, by definition, be making a moral claim that it is bad to eat meat or use animal products unless absolutely necessary for immediate survival. If you think there's a reason to think otherwise, perhaps you could actually state it — Isaac

Yes, I think otherwise. There are plenty of other moral claims an ethical vegan can make. For instance they might say that it is immoral to eat a product the consumption of which leads to a net increase in animal suffering. That would exclude hunter gatherers and also people who eat cleanly-killed game. It could even exclude meat production in the manner advocated and exemplified by Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall. The moral claim that is made depends on the vegan.

Again your claims are too broad and too dogmatic.

Given that they think other people can have committed moral wrongs on the basis of their morality, they must be moral realists, that's just the definition of the term. — Isaac

No, it isn't. A moral relativist is as capable of making a moral claim to another person as a moral absolutist is. If they share the same moral axioms (which seems to be the case here, as most participants in this thread appear to be approaching it from a utilitarian base), then it's a disagreement about what strategy maximises compliance with the axioms - ie an argument over implementation.

Even in the less frequent cases where the values are not shared, there is nothing to stop two moral relativists arguing with one another using rhetoric to try to win over the other to greater sympathy with their base values.